Many have speculated — and maybe even Quentin alluded to this back in the day — that if there was a “Kill Bill 3,” the story would center on the daughter of Vivica Fox’s Jeannie Bell (“Copperhead”) character who watched the bride, Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman), kill her mother right in front of her eyes in “Kill Bill 2.”
Many speculated/ assumed a third film would see the grown up daughter try and avenge her mother’s death, though Tarantino has said the films would be 10 years apart. Whether we’re supposed to do the math literally or not is unknown, but it feels if the avenging daughter would be the ‘KB3’ story, you’d probably need more than 10 years to properly suspend disbelief (the girl would only be what, 18, 19? At best conservative count?).
Anyhow, many people (including us), have been rather skeptical whether we’ll actually see this film or not. Tarantino promises a lot of sequels and so far has yet to deliver (we’re grateful frankly, but that’s another story). But in an interview with MTV, Uma Thurman says Quentin has already come up with story ideas/lines, shared them with her and may or may not have started some preliminary writing.
“We did chat [about the story], we did chat,” she told MTV. “He has not yet finished the script. I don’t even really know if he’s really started it, although I got a taste of some of his ideas and they are really good. He has started to share with me what he was thinking, and it’s awesome,” she said refusing to let the cat out of the bag.
Already that’s a lot more thought and effort than we imagined QT had put into that potential story at this juncture in time. And the idea that he may have started? Or at least has the gears turning? It’s definitely an interesting thought.
But we don’t actually want to see a “Kill Bill 3,” frankly. His original creations are always great ideas (while some of us — me — didn’t like ‘Inglourious,’ the script is excellent) and we’d rather not see him go down the lazy route of sequel-ville which really does separate good filmmakers from classic filmmakers, honestly. But we won’t doubt him again. Tarantino said “Inglourious Basterds” would be turned around in a year and much to our disbelief he did make his own Cannes deadline.
So if he’s actively plotting and thinking about “Kill Bill 3” maybe 2014 isn’t just a pipe dream. Still, the idea that he could tackle either a U.S. Slavery story, a true-blue Western or an 1930s Gangster film are honestly all more appealing, simply because he’s never been there yet. Do you really want to see Tarantino repeat himself? (aside from the concepts and genre themes he’s already played with more than once)
"and we'd rather not see him go down the lazy route of sequel-ville which really does separate good filmmakers from classic filmmakers, honestly."
What the hell are you guys talking about?!
Need i remind you of so many fantastic sequels that expanded and enriched the original movies?
Sometimes you guys need to think before you write this lines that you think are oh so clever remarks…
You're thinking of like X2 which did enrich the first one.
I'm thinking of masterclass directors who never touched the stuff. I'm delusional to think of Tarantino in that way for some reason. I'm still rooting for the guy to be one of the greats.
Really…?
So i guess you haven´t seen say… The Godfather Part II…
Yeah, you are right… Coppola is not a "masterclass" director…
How about "The wayward cloud"…?
Nope?
Ohh you little rascals you…
two out of how many?
What the hell that´s that got to do with anything?
You are keeping count?
Already with two films, i have proven your statement is wrong…
But if you want me to keep going, ok…
"Before Sunset", "After the thin man", "The spiders, part II", "Evild dead 2", "A shot in the dark", "Aparajito", "The Bourne Supremacy", "Dawn of the dead", "Bride of frankenstein", "Sanjuro", "Terminator 2", "For a few dollars more", "Road Warrior"
And so on… And so on…
You win Monty. I'm pulling the story down and quit.
Hope you're happy. 😉
C'mon dude, all i'm saying is sequels — especially in this day and age suck and they're usually just a cash grab for a "Franchise."
Yes, the Kurosawa one is my fave example of yours (though the Ray one is fantastic too), but those kinds of films are not really the norm anymore.
Sorry, I just don't want to see him become that kind of director, because he's almost already there (and a buddy of his is squarely in that world and it shows in his work).
I hear what you are saying man, but my point is you can´t put ALL sequels, not even current sequels, in the same bag.
Yes there are a lot of them with the sole purpose of making money, but some of the ones i told you about are recent…
"Before the sunset", "The Wayward Cloud", or take "The Dark Knight" or even "The Bourne Supremacy" for example.
And listen, i´m not even saying the bourne one is a classic piece of filmaking. (Nor is the dark knight)
But my point is, sequels can improve upon what´s been introduced in the first film, even when they are out to make money.
Sure, they can do that. I'd rather Tarantino stay away. He's gone from winning the palme d'Or to being just slightly better than his boyfriends RR and Eli Roth so come on… do I need to explain the concern?
I'm so over Kill Bill. Just move on QT…please. Sure, I'd see it if it happened and probably enjoy it to some extent, but let's try something else for a change. I think the gimmicky references, the retro titles, every thing's gotta go. It feels gimmicky and it's not cute or original anymore. Just move on QT. We know he's smart enough to pull it off, he just likes his little comfort zone.